During the evening, officers also located a man with an AR-15 assault rifle slung around his neck, according to a press release. The man had an unusable, unloaded magazine in the weapon and a loaded, operable 10-round magazine in his pocket. The weapon was taken for public safety reasons, officials said.

I don't know anything else about this event, except to say that the scene on the Arcata Plaza on Halloween has become outright dangerous and criminal (more of a riot than a party). Anyone carrying there, legally or not, made a very poor judgement call.

Most people around here know about bullet buttons, and ALL of the cops know about them. While the article does not state one way or the other if the rifle was legal, it sounds like the owner had his property confiscated and was not actually arrested, which smells funny to me. This feels like an illegal seizure, but the Untimely Sub-Standard is well known around here for very porr reporting. Unfortunately the article doesn't name the individual, so it's hard for me to track him down and ask (small town) but maybe it's in an LEA press release, I haven't checked.

Knowing enough to have an unloaded magazine in the rifle says to me that the owner may have been practicing Open Carry. I'd be a bit surprised if someone involved in the Open Carry movement would have been so stupid as to carry an unregistered AW instead of a BB-equipped and legally-owned AR-15. IIRC, OC of long arms isn't prohibited until next year, yes?

Just wanted to share on CalGuns. Life's been crazy and it's been a while since I've posted, so maybe this isn't even the right forum anymore. If so, mods, feel free to move it of course. BBs are still legit, right?

"What you've just posted is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent post were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

If they are giving him his gun back and he wasn't arrested, sounds like an overzealous cop who found out after the fact that the guy was in fact legal?

Not quite, and you're assuming they are just giving him his gun back. Not only was it nearly certainly an unconstitutional seizure of lawfully-possessed property, but they cannot give the gun back without the gun owner spending money on a LEGR and travelling to the PD property room to retrive the firearms, as well as suffering loss of use for the time period beginning with the taking and ending when it is returned.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Not quite, and you're assuming they are just giving him his gun back. Not only was it nearly certainly an unconstitutional seizure of lawfully-possessed property, but they cannot give the gun back without the gun owner spending money on a LEGR and travelling to the PD property room to retrive the firearms, as well as suffering loss of use for the time period beginning with the taking and ending when it is returned.

-Brandon

Legally they cannot but they can still do it anyway. Wouldn't be the first time we've seen government and even law enforcement bend/ignore/break the law.

__________________

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.

The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights.Magna est veritas et praevalebit

I know it probably might not make much sense financially on a this-case-only basis, but wouldn't a lawsuit followed by a consent decree help outright prevent this kind of event in that City, and discourage it in other venues going forward? Perhaps to include mandated discipline of officers who go off the reservation in this way.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

This. And until I found out contribution cash would be staying at home.

If the guy wasn't drinking or doing anything unlawful (my sources say that he wasn't) - which we won't be able to confirm until we research the matter - then he was an innocent gun owner that got screwed. We can help him get his gun back and in any case make sure the cops are properly trained so as to [hopefully] avoid another such incident in the future - what's the downside here?

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

This is a great way to support 2A or a waste of time helping out a nimrod who should know better. Knowing the difference would be telling.

Should know what better?

I wouldn't carry an AR in public on Halloween myself, but if the guy's innocent then the guy's innocent and his lawfully-possessed property was unconstitutionally seized. That's the bottom line. Not helping him would be tantamount to the wood stock guys not standing with the OLL crowd.

-Brandon

__________________Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.

This. And until I found out contribution cash would be staying at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul0660

This is a great way to support 2A or a waste of time helping out a nimrod who should know better. Knowing the difference would be telling.

You either support the right to own and carry a legally configured rifle or you do not-

If rights were predicated upon the use of flawless judgement, we would either not exercise them in the abundance of caution or abandon those with whom we disagree. That is where we as gunowners are being used against each other. Ante up or anti up. You decide.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche

They think... "I wouldn't go outin public with an AR on my back" is the same as doing something illegal. The cop violated the persons 2A right just as if a cop stopped them and asked to see thier legal CCW and then walked away with thier "Concealed" gun.

Wrong is wrong. And now this lawful gun owner is going to have to be burdened to get what is legally his back.

They think... "I wouldn't go outin public with an AR on my back" is the same as doing something illegal. The cop violated the persons 2A right just as if a cop stopped them and asked to see thier legal CCW and then walked away with thier "Concealed" gun.

Wrong is wrong. And now this lawful gun owner is going to have to be burdened to get what is legally his back.

That I say is BS.

This. Why oh why on earth can some people not figure out that stupid does not, and should not, equal illegal?

__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura

Conversely, if he had started shooting people, the police would be blamed for not taking it.

Freedom vs Security

I say let em all have guns.

You are kidding, right?

__________________
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool that follows him?"-Obi Wan Kenobi

the question here is not whether the carrying of arms is a good idea—the question is
whether carrying arms is constitutionally protected. Objective standards and due process—not
Defendants’ philosophy or personal beliefs about the value of this activity—must carry the day-Alan Gura

Hey, there's plenty of Humboldt folks on here. While I know nothing of this incident, you have to be an idiot to bring an AR to the Arcata plaza on halloween.

I see. So given the history of violence at this location you wouldnt want anyone but police or military armed there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meplat1

Why not? I would think you could ‘demand’ anything you want; getting it is another story.

It is more beneficial to demand that the police follow the law than to establish precedent that they can avoid litigation by handing over wrongfully seized property with a pat on the back and a 'sorry for the trouble'.

Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. Bastiat

“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.” Friedrich Nietzsche